http://umbc.uoregon.edu/eteacher/
Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain
Background:
In the late 1950s into the early 1970s here in the US there were attempts to dissect and classify
the varied domains of human learning - cognitive (knowing), affective (feeling), and
psychomotor (doing). The resulting efforts yielded a series of taxonomies in each area. A
taxonomy is really just a word for a form of classification. The aforementioned taxonomies deal
with the varied aspects of human learning and are arranged hierarchically proceeding from the
simplest functions to those that are more complex.
The Cognitive Domain: In the following table are the two primary existing taxonomies of
cognition. The one on the left, entitled Bloom's (1956), is based on the original work of
Benjamin Bloom and others as they attempted in 1956 to define the functions of thought, coming
to know, or cognition. This taxonomy is over 50 years old.
The taxonomy on the right is the more recent adaptation and is the redefined work of one of
Bloom's former students, Lorin Anderson, working with one of Bloom's partners in the original
work on cognition, David Krathwohl. That one is labeled Anderson and Krathwohl (2000).
The new taxonomy was a larger group effort lead by Anderson and Krathwohl as they worked
on this task from from 1995-2000. The group was assembled by the primary authors and
included people with expertise in the areas of cognitive psychology, curriculum and instruction,
and educational testing, measurement, and assessment.
As you will see the primary differences are not just in the listings or rewordings from nouns to
verbs, or in the renaming of some of the components, or even in the repositioning of the last two
categories. The major differences in the updated version are in the more useful and
comprehensive additions of how the taxonomy intersects and acts upon different types and levels
of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.
Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain:
Bloom's Taxonomy 1956
1. Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving
previously learned material. Examples of verbs
that relate to this function are:
Anderson and Krathwohl's
Taxonomy 2000
1. Remembering: Retrieving,
recalling, or recognizing
knowledge from memory.
Remembering is when memory
is used to produce definitions,
facts, or lists, or recite or
retrieve material.
The E-Teacher Scholarship Program is a cooperative grant agreement between the U.S.
Department of State ECA/A/L; the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; and the
University of Oregon.
http://umbc.uoregon.edu/eteacher/
2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or
construct meaning from material. Examples of
verbs that relate to this function are:
restate
locate
report
recognize
explain
express
identify
discuss
describe
review
infer
conclude
illustrate
interpret
draw
represent
differentiate
3. Application: The ability to use learned
material, or to implement material in new and
concrete situations. Examples of verbs that
relate to this function are:
apply
relate
develop
translate
use
operate
organize
employ
restructure
interpret
demonstrate
illustrate
practice
calculate
show
exhibit
dramatize
4. Analysis: The ability to break down or
distinguish the parts of material into its
components so that its organizational structure
may be better understood. Examples of verbs
that relate to this function are:
analyze
compare
probe
inquire
examine
contrast
categorize
differentiate
contrast
investigate
detect
survey
classify
deduce
experiment
scrutinize
discover
inspect
dissect
discriminate
separate
2. Understanding:
Constructing meaning from
different types of functions be
they written or graphic
messages activities like
interpreting, exemplifying,
classifying, summarizing,
inferring, comparing, and
explaining.
3. Applying: Carrying out or
using a procedure through
executing, or
implementing. Applying
related and refers to situations
where learned material is used
through products like models,
presentations, interviews or
simulations.
4. Analyzing: Breaking
material or concepts into parts,
determining how the parts
relate or interrelate to one
another or to an overall
structure or purpose. Mental
actions included in this
function are differentiating,
organizing, and attributing,
as well as being able to
distinguish between the
components or parts. When one
is analyzing he/she can
illustrate this mental function
by creating spreadsheets,
surveys, charts, or diagrams, or
graphic representations.
The E-Teacher Scholarship Program is a cooperative grant agreement between the U.S.
Department of State ECA/A/L; the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; and the
University of Oregon.
http://umbc.uoregon.edu/eteacher/
5. Synthesis: The ability to put parts together to
form a coherent or unique new whole.
Examples of verbs that relate to this function
are:
compose
produce
design
assemble
create
prepare
predict
modify
tell
plan
invent
formulate
collect
set up
generalize
document
combine
relate
propose
develop
arrange
construct
organize
originate
derive
write
propose
5. Evaluating: Making
judgments based on criteria and
standards through checking
and critiquing. Critiques,
recommendations, and reports
are some of the products that
can be created to demonstrate
the processes of evaluation. In
the newer taxonomy evaluation
comes before creating as it is
often a necessary part of the
precursory behavior before
creating something.
Remember this one has now
changed places with the last
one on the other side.
6. Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and
even critique the value of material for a given
purpose. Examples of verbs that relate to this
function are:
judge
assess
compare
evaluate
conclude
measure
deduce
argue
decide
choose
rate
select
estimate
validate
consider
appraise
value
criticize
infer
6. Creating: Putting elements
together to form a coherent or
functional whole; reorganizing
elements into a new pattern or
structure through generating,
planning, or producing.
Creating requires users to put
parts together in a new way or
synthesize parts into something
new and different a new form
or product. This process is the
most difficult mental function
in the new taxonomy.
This one used to be #5 in
Bloom's known as synthesis.
Table 1.1 Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl
The E-Teacher Scholarship Program is a cooperative grant agreement between the U.S.
Department of State ECA/A/L; the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; and the
University of Oregon.
http://umbc.uoregon.edu/eteacher/
One of the things that clearly differentiates the new model from that of the 1956 original is that it
lays out components nicely so they can be considered and used, and so cognitive processes as
related to chosen instructional tasks can be easily documented and tracked. This feature has the
potential to make teacher assessment, teacher self-assessment, and student assessment easier or
clearer as usage patterns emerge.
Perhaps surprisingly, these levels of knowledge were indicated in Bloom's original work factual, conceptual, and procedural - but these were never fully understood or used by teachers
because most of what educators were given in training consisted of a simple chart with the listing
of levels and related accompanying verbs. The full breadth of Handbook I and its
recommendations on types of knowledge were rarely discussed in any instructive or useful way.
Nor were teachers in training ever made aware of any of the criticisms leveled against the
original model. Please note that in the updated version the term "metacognitive" has been added
to the array of knowledge types.
The E-Teacher Scholarship Program is a cooperative grant agreement between the U.S.
Department of State ECA/A/L; the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; and the
University of Oregon.
http://umbc.uoregon.edu/eteacher/
Here are the intersections as the processes impact the levels of knowledge. Using a simple cross
impact grid or table like the one below, one can match easily activities and objectives to the
types of knowledge and to the cognitive processes as well. It is a very useful tool to use in
assessing how instruction is actually impacting levels of learning. Teachers can also use it to
track which levels of cognition they are requiring from students, as well as which dimensions of
knowledge.
Cognitive Processes
The
Knowledge
Dimensions
1.
2.
Remember Understand
3.
4.
5.
6.
Apply
Analyze
Evaluate
Create
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Metacognitive
Knowledge Dimensions Defined:
Factual Knowledge is knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines. This dimension refers to
essential facts, terminology, details or elements students must know or be familiar with in order
to understand a discipline or solve a problem in it.
Conceptual Knowledge is knowledge of classifications, principles, generalizations, theories,
models, or structures pertinent to a particular disciplinary area.
Procedural Knowledge refers to information or knowledge that helps students to do something
specific to a discipline, subject, area of study. It also refers to methods of inquiry, very specific
or finite skills, algorithms, techniques, and particular methodologies.
Metacognitive Knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognition and particular cognitive
processes. It is strategic or reflective knowledge about how to go about solving problems,
cognitive tasks, to include contextual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self.
The E-Teacher Scholarship Program is a cooperative grant agreement between the U.S.
Department of State ECA/A/L; the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; and the
University of Oregon.
http://umbc.uoregon.edu/eteacher/
Adapted with permission from:
Owen Wilson, L. (2006). Beyond Bloom - A new version of the cognitive taxonomy. In Leslie
Owen Wilson’s Curriculum pages. Retrieved from
http://www.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/curric/newtaxonomy.htm
Sources:
Anderson, L. W. & David R. Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001). A Taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon (Pearson Education Group).
Bloom, B.S. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification
of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. In Handbook I:
cognitive domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green.
The E-Teacher Scholarship Program is a cooperative grant agreement between the U.S.
Department of State ECA/A/L; the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; and the
University of Oregon.